Pluralistic: “If buying isn’t owning, piracy isn’t stealing” (08 Dec 2023) – Pluralistic: Daily links from Cory Doctorow
pluralistic.net

The ability to change features, prices, and availability of things you’ve already paid for is a powerful temptation to corporations.

  • ominouslemon@lemm.eeEnglish
    64·
    11 months ago

    But the time to create a novel, a videogame, or a news story is not infinitely reproducible, either. So when you are pirsting one of those things, you are actively reaping the benefits of someone’s time for free, like going to a concert without a ticket

    • Chobbes@lemmy.worldEnglish
      3·
      11 months ago

      Yeah, this is the real issue. That said it is a shame and a waste for the results of these efforts to be artificially restricted. I do really hope that one day we can find a way to keep people fed and happy while fully utilizing the incredible technology we have for copying and redistributing data.

      • ominouslemon@lemm.eeEnglish
        1·
        11 months ago

        I mean, we’ve kinda already found a way, and it’s ads. Now it’s obvious that the ad market as a whole is horrible (it’s manipulative, it has turned into spying, it does not work really well, it’s been controlled by just a handful of companies etc), but at least it’s democratic in that it allows broader access to culture to everyone while still paying the creators.

        Personally, I would not be against ads, if they were not tracking me. As of now, though, the situation seems fucked up and a new model is probably necessary. It’s just that, until now, every other solution is worse for creators.

    • Venia Silente@lemm.eeEnglish
      43·
      11 months ago

      There’s a difference between the performer’s time to create not being infinitely reproducible, and an user’s time to use the product being or not infinitely reproducible. Whether I’m pirating or buying a TV show, the actors were already compensated for their time and use for the show; my payment for buying actually goes to the corporate fat: licensors, distributors, etc.

      Whereas when pay a ticket into a live concert, I’m actually paying for something to be made.

        • CybranM@feddit.nuEnglish
          5·
          11 months ago

          It just magically appears /s Its disingenuous to try and justify piracy on the basis that the performers have already been paid. I don’t agree with studios either of course, customers are being scammed

        • Venia Silente@lemm.eeEnglish
          11·
          11 months ago

          From the investors who are paying the cheques of course. They are corporations, they can afford to spend some coins on [checks notes] living wages.

            • Venia Silente@lemm.eeEnglish
              11·
              11 months ago

              And such “return” comes after the work, not before. So there’s no reason to condition the wages to do the work, on the potential that the work might be sold or not and to what amount of people. Now that would be air-quotes “stealing”!

      • ominouslemon@lemm.eeEnglish
        3·
        11 months ago

        This only applies to cases where the artist/actor/whatever gets paid upfront. Most of the times, that does not happen. The creator of something only gets money when somebody buys what they have created (books, videogames, music, etc)

        • Venia Silente@lemm.eeEnglish
          1·
          11 months ago

          I can get that they’d not necessarily be paid upfront, but there is no possible legal contract in which they are to be paid only in the future, in causality, according to the performance of a ~~third~ ~ fourth party who is not in the contract. What, are the actors paying their weekly groceries with IOUs?

          • ominouslemon@lemm.eeEnglish
            1·
            11 months ago

            Every artist in every field get MAYBE paid a tiny bit upfront, and then a percentage of the sales. That’s how books and music work, for instance